New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity • Hacker News Board

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#581

Post by mensetmanusman » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 3:49 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #511

zozbot234 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in the United States LGBT marriage was instated via an application and extension of customary law, not any statute from Congress or even any overt politics. I see this as being quite compatible with conservative and libertarian values, seeking to remove undue interference from personal lives as much as possible. I'm not sure why you would disagree. Progressive activists may see the political process as the only…

That's what I'm saying. In the US, conservatives actively worked, and still work, against personal liberties in terms of LGBT marriage rights. That was my point.

Be cautious of the definition trap.

People have different definitions of marriage. One person ‘defending’ one definition looks like ‘actively working against’ another definition.

E.g. in some cultures, by definition, a marriage isn’t valid without a male/female sexual act (the only kind that can lead to procreation, by definition). This axiom is held by over a billion humans for example.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#582

Post by nickik » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 3:49 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #463

Covzire wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all the news shows anymore. They could cover many other things, maybe throw in a few positive stories, but cable news and largely the whole industry is just one growing dark cloud.

Local news (small town of How does that matter to me? It sucks, and it's a tragedy, but it has literally zero impact on my life. But it sure makes good news for people to worry about.

This is why I avoid news media pretty much completely. If you study everything a few years removed you actually get a much better picture.

The problem with news media is that people have no context what so ever and often no sense of connection. Afghanistan in 2001 fell from the clear blue sky from a non existing place to being a place that can teleport people to New York. Despite it having been in the news somewhat in the 80s.

Even the people who remembered the 80s had no context of what happened in between then because nobody cared basically.

A modern example is the Syrian Civil war, if you only follow the day by the news even if you do it everyday, you actually would have very little understanding what so ever. Many of the actual facts only get relieved much later.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#583

Post by rovolo » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #310

livinginfear wrote: post #80

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

Lot of advice floating about the workplace these days along the lines of be candid, join the conversation, bring your whole self to work, etc. The people giving this advice seem to have no conception that not everyone actively engaged in these topics is acting in 100% good faith. Being too open could so easily backfire. Encouraging this is borderline negligent. Indeed there’s entire branches of activism that rest on…

When I hear "bring your whole self to work", I think of gay people who couldn't mention their loved ones because that would out them. When you say there should be a "strong separation between your private life", I don't think you're expecting to never mention your family. Maybe your partner is sick and you're feeling stressed. In a supportive environment, shouldn't that be mentioned?

Even though the personal is political (such as the status of being gay), It sounds to me like you're thinking about political topics irrelevant to the organization when you advise people to "avoid controversial and political discussions". Whether the topic is relevant to your work depends on the topic, and it's up to you to make a cost-benefit analysis of whether it's worth discussing. I think that people should be able to discuss their family life and workplace policies, but I agree that broader political discussion may not be worth it.

I guess I'd like to end by saying that it depends. What don't you think should be discussed at work? Why shouldn't you discuss this with your colleagues? Personally, I think discussing a gay spouse should be fine and expected, and supporting genocide shouldn't be, but there's a lot of room in between those two extremes.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#584

Post by M2Ys4U » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 3:54 PM UTC

efaref wrote: post #345

M2Ys4U wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the UK we don't have and have never had freedom of speech. That's not true - we do have freedom of speech. It's just not absolute freedom of speech, which is a frankly horrible idea, because absolute rights almost always undermine other rights. (As an example, absolute freedom of speech would preclude all rights to privacy and confidentiality.) What we have is a framework of fundamental rights, most of which are…

In the UK we have limited freedom of expression (under S10 of the Human Rights Act 1998), which is much more narrowly defined, and even then subject to many restrictions and limitations (libel, court privilege, hate speech, and more). It doesn't really qualify as "freedom of speech" in the sense that really matters for this discussion.

>In the UK we have limited freedom of expression [...] which is much more narrowly defined

There is no real distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Speech is expression, or rather it is a subset.

Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is the "Power to take remedial action" by ministers if a court has issued a declaration of incompatibility.

I think you mean Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is given direct domestic legal effect by the Human Rights Act.

A10 states

>Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

which I'm not sure you can claim isn't "freedom of speech".

I did state earlier that it's a qualified right, and those qualifications are:

>The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

but this hardly seems like it undermines freedom of speech. There are limits, but they must be "necessary in a democratic society" (which can be - and often is - the basis for a legal challenge by those who think their A10 rights have been violated) and for a defined, and limited, number of reasons.

Like I also said above, if you remove (some of) these qualifications then you end up with perverse results, like undermining the right to privacy or justice itself.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#585

Post by datavirtue » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #108

Thorentis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with, shall we say, radically progressive views, are more than comfortable to share them openly in the staff rooms, kitchens, before and after meetings, etc. without anybody contending with them. Anybody with more centrist, or God forbid conservative views, saves them for the pub afterwards or for their private gatherings. The Overton window seems to shift weekly.

That's the case if the majority of people hold progressive views. I've encountered enough conservative companies where people had no problem sharing openly conservative views (some to an extreme that led to open racism). In those companies, no one would've dared voicing progressive views. Doing that was the easiest way to become an outsider.

Indeed. At work my political views shift to whatever way the wind is blowing for a particular group. I can usually find a way to speak sincerely from any view point. All of this is contingent on not being able to avoid such conversations in the first place. You can piss people off by simply taking a neutral stance so that is not always an option. I often end up as an unofficial go-between for different groups where I can influence both toward more moderate common ground.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#586

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #580

edenhyacinth wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument assumes women aren't interested in those roles, and that their disinterest is the only or primary thing that causes an imbalance. You have to know that isn't true, which makes this a great example of why people are frustrated about discussing anything 'political' in the workplace.

Do you have some data to support your assumption that they do want to be in those roles in higher numbers that they are already?

[deleted]

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#587

Post by blaser-waffle » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 4:04 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #310

livinginfear wrote: post #80

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

Lot of advice floating about the workplace these days along the lines of be candid, join the conversation, bring your whole self to work, etc. The people giving this advice seem to have no conception that not everyone actively engaged in these topics is acting in 100% good faith. Being too open could so easily backfire. Encouraging this is borderline negligent. Indeed there’s entire branches of activism that rest on…

> Indeed there’s entire branches of activism that rest on bad-faith ideologies

Elaborate plz

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#588

Post by rovolo » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #489

creata wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions. That's not a theory, that's just restating the question! Why is the distribution the way it is, and should we make efforts to change it?

Maybe, but I still think there's an important point in there. We (society) do a lot of handwringing about CEO and engineering jobs, but these aren't even remotely the most gender-asymmetric careers out there. According to [1], "Locomotive engineers and operators" are 92.3 percent male. I'm willing to bet that if you can "fix" that problem - or even conclusively identify the cause - gender imbalance issues in other fi…

There are:

55k "Locomotive engineers and operators" (90% male)

1.7m "Chief executives" (70% male)

1.9m "Software developers" (80% male)

3.2m "Architecture and engineering occupations" (85% male)

Maybe there is a lot of handwringing within the locomotive industry, but it really doesn't seem important enough for the rest of us to care about.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#589

Post by scoutt » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

yerwhat01010 wrote: post #259

yerwhat01010 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. This is so true. I've seen polling showing that large numbers of people believe that the number of unarmed black men fatally shot by American police every year is in the "thousands" or even "tens of thousands". And the further to the left the media people consume, the higher they're likely to believe the number is. The ac…

(Someone commented that it's "insane" to say that you should be able to shoot someone if they attack you with their fists and I typed out a long reply, but they had deleted their comment before I could post it, so I'm going to post my reply here so I don't feel like I wasted my efforts) Yes, it absolutely is a valid reason to shoot someone, and anyone with training in firearms or self-defense would agree. You're not…

> if someone's attacking you with their fists, they're potentially threatening your life ... use whatever tools are at your disposal to neutralise the threat.

If a sentence like that is assimilated by the most obtuse cops (not all cops are super great critical thinkers) then I am not surprised of the current situations happening in the US.

What if it's an old lady trying to hit the cop because of an anxiety episode? I've seen a lot of videos on Reddit of cops tazing, pulling guns and acting super aggressive at mad old women probably because "cop's life potentially under threat".

As other commenters said, this is, in my opinion, so american...

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#590

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

Hercuros wrote: post #572

giantg2 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been one to speak my mind. I see myself as having been punished for it. I was doing work a grade or two above mine but was held back from promotion. So I didn't make senior developer on that team. Then I was even in jeopardy of losing my job over a statement I made (not vulgar, disrespectful, or anything) so I have to switch stacks a couple times to move out of a bad area of the company. I'm 9 years in and just…

I think it is still understandable though that making those kinds of technical corrections about a study could be perceived as "defining away the problem" or getting too technical about a (potentially) real societal issue. The mere fact that you are talking about "TV reporters" way of talking about things communicates that you have a disdain for the way such issues are commonly discussed in the media or by the genera…

I don't see why a factual correction should be seen as political. Especially if I don't present any arguement with it or have it lead into an opposing opinion. As stated in the prior comment, I'll correct people who I agree with their conclusion (on different factual/logical basis) if their facts are wrong or blatantly misapplied.

The comment about the TV reporters is because they should have a responsibility to ensure their facts are correctly represented. Instead of doing their own research and reading the study, they are willing to just repeat what others have said. I think it's difficult to provide an accurate picture of a subject if they know almost nothing about it. How many times have you heard a report on a technology story and thought that isn't a correct explanation, or maybe it's not the whole story?